Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-03-11T12:49:53Z

Knowthetruth:

'''It shouldn't.''' Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

'''It should.''' Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T07:26:31Z

Knowthetruth:

'''No.''' [[Infinite regression]] is a cop-out. It is closely akin to [[circular reasoning]], except that the line of reasoning is not so much a circle as a spiral, into the infinite past or at least through an infinite number of prior steps. For example: How did life originate on earth? It didn't--it couldn't have. So where did it come from? Did [[God]] create it? No--no God-talk in [[science|scientific]] circles. ([[Francis H. Crick]] once wrote a nasty letter to [[Winston Churchill]] suggesting that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel at [[Oxford University]].) Therefore, life was deposited on earth from the outside. How? By a [[ballistic missile]] or a [[comet]]'s tail. Where did that life come from? From another [[planet]]. But how did life arise on that other planet? It didn't--couldn't have--too much information. Did God create life on that other planet? Oh, no. Therefore life was deposited on ''that'' planet as well. Where did ''that'' life come from? From ''another'' ballistic missile. And so on, and so on, for an infinite number of steps.

Am I the only one who recognizes such a line of reasoning as absurd? And not merely absurd, but self-serving of the interests of those seeking to deny God's existence and His role as Creator. It is a very travesty of [[logic]], and that is why I sought to classify it as a [[logical fallacy]].

Why, then, is it ''not'' a logical fallacy? Can an infinite regression ever exist in nature? I'm waiting for the evidence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Postscript: This is a special-case type of page. The "article," as such, ''is'' discussion. That's the nature of a debate topic.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''. There is no ''a priori'' reason to rule out infinite regression in all circumstances. It may seem a superficially unsatisfying explaination to state "it's turtles all the way down", but that doesn't mean that infinite regression cannot exist. Of course, if there is a finite limit to the problem at hand, such as the age of the universe in the panspermia problem, then infinite regression cannot work. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'''Counter'''. That is precisely the problem. The age of the universe ''is'' limited. No reputable [[Astronomy|astronomer]] accepts a steady-state universe anymore. The most that anyone will accept is a cyclic universe--but [[Albert Einstein]] held that a cyclic universe is impossible, because our universe doesn't have enough mass to stop expansion and bring everything back into a clump again. Einstein was slow to realize that, of course, but in the end he yielded to the demands of logic, his own wonderfully self-consistent theory, and observations that he could not controvert.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Firstly, I am not arguing for a "big crush" model. I defer to the opinions of my phycist collegues who assert that a massively old and thus dilute universe could provide the conditions for new "big bangs" or useful material. If it is possible, then there is no ''a priori'' reasons to dismiss infite regression out of hand. Furthermore infinite regression relates to more than temporal regression. You will be familure with cells being explained in terms of chemicals, chemicals in terms of atoms, and so on until we reach quantum theory, or more controversially string theory. There is no ''a priori'' reason to simply assume than this line of explaination stops there, or even ever stops, although I think it probable that it does eventually stop. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I use inappropriate formatting for a discussion page, I'm new to wiki formatting, and I'm very open to guidance on how to use it properly.

I'd like to make a couple of comments here. Fact: All the matter, energy, space and time of ''this'' universe began at it's original Creation. As far as '''''this''''' universe goes, there is absolutely no naturalistic explanation for causation beyond the origin of this universe--simple logic reasoning. Any attempt to do so is by it's very nature inherently a '''super'''-natural (metaphysical) appeal. Therefore (I'm assuming it's acceptable here in discussions to make personal assertions, again correct me if I'm wrong...) let's have no further statements proclaiming 'infinite regressions' beyond the definite '''''finite''''' temporal bounds of this universe. It certainly '''is''' logically ''a priori'' impossible.

On the question of life: The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to the materialist origin of life researcher. There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of living cells (particularly amidst the seriously hostile conditions which were known to exist here on earth at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.

On fallacies: The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature. That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist :^). All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other than possibly as wishful thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^). There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology. The most important one for this issue is that it showed definitively the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator". This is a concept from Thermodynamics. The accuracy of the initial measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced by several other instruments and research teams, and all strongly confirmed the finding--namely this: That the universe as a whole radiates '''''all''''' it's energy (that is, 100%). If you do a little mechanics analysis (remember E=MC^2?) then you realize- There's no energy left over to provide for a so-called 'bounce'.

Additionally, not only is the universe shown to be expanding, but it is now known that it's ''rate'' of expansion is '''increasing'''. If gravitational braking alone was the only action taking place, you would expect a ''decrease'' in it's rate, not an ''increase''. And, even accounting for Dark Matter, the universe is ''far'' short of the critical mass-density required to gravitationally halt it's expansion, even if Dark Energy wasn't in fact the dominant factor, as it is conclusively known to be.

--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Re "do a little mechanics analysis." Go on, then. Let's see it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I'm assuming that is meant as a goad? :^) It's a simple inertia problem. If you'd like to bone up on your Inertia studies, let me in turn invite you to do a little exploration on your own: [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Did it occur to you that in a collapsing Universe, precisely the phenomenon Einstein describes there leads to radiation pressure opposing that collapse?

:There are good reasons to reject the old bouncing models, but this isn't one of them. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Radiation left over from what... the now completely expended mass-energy after total external radiation into the black-body? Think about it for a minute. I believe this is the second strongest argument against a bouncing-universe directly after Dark Energy--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 19:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Radiation ''is'' mass-energy. And it hasn't been 'expended.' How can you expend a quantity that's (locally) conserved? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

You make my point (albeit unwillingly) exactly. Study the notion of the black-body in thermodynamics. The mass-energy '''''is''''' expended (out of this universe) by the radiation you speak of. BTW, there is a fundamental flaw in the model of collapse you mentioned previously. (It's related to the point I just made) If you integrate the radiation-pressure vectors in an enclosed volume they balance to zero. Remember the radiation is in all directions. So in your model, radiation would actually play no factor in the motion of the masses. All that would be left are the effects of Brownian-motions and gravity. In actual fact, however, the universe is ''not'' in an enclosed volume, and the radiation-pressure vectors integrated over time would actually induce interior motion of the volume ''towards'' your supposed collapse, not the reverse. The universe "leaks", and like air escaping from a balloon, the average thrust on any given particle would eventually be interior. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'Out of this universe?' Where exactly do you think it's going? And yes, radiation is in all directions. So what? Same is true of molecular motion in an ideal gas, but that doesn't prevent them from exerting positive pressure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I think my previous comment explains where I believe the radiation to be going. Since you know of the term Ideal Gas, you may already understand the balance to zero of the radiation pressure. But it distinctly appears you are postulating what can only be described as an enclosed universe, and in a static enclosed volume radiated pressure will '''''not''''' exert positive pressure on the system as a whole. It will be zero in Ideal Gas. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:29, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Outside the Universe somewhere, apparently. Well, that's thoroughly meaningless. The Universe doesn't ''have'' an outside.

:I don't need to postulate an enclosed Universe (by which I assume you mean a finite, unbounded Universe). The radiation is not leaving the Universe, and so its mass-energy is not being 'expended.' It's still available, and in a collapsing Universe it'll end up increasing in temperature (not to mention increasing the temperature of the matter fields it interacts with), and producing increasing outwards pressure, just as compressing an ideal gas with a piston will produce pressure resisting that compression. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

''"The Universe doesn't have an outside"''? The simple finite nature of the universe makes it intrinsically self-evident there '''is''' reality outside this universe. And the reason engineers design pistons with cylinders and heads around them is for the simple fact that advantage can be taken of the gas resistance you mentioned to do a little work (thus reducing that system's energy quotient, BTW, think about it with me here...) The universe has no such 'cylinder-wall', and during any theoretical collapse, would eventually radiate it's energy ''away'' from itself, and any interior radiative pressure in the system would also eventually disappear. However, neither of those is the actual point. The universe is ''currently, right now, at this moment''--a '''perfect black-body radiator'''. We don't need to theorize about some elusive universal collapse. The current universe radiates '''''everything'''''.

Look, I am not going to continue responding to your cyclic arguments on this matter of gas thermodynamics any further in this forum, the literature is out there as to ''why'' the [[COBE]] and [[WMAP]] and other results confirm this is the ''first'' and ''only'' expansion of the universe that will ever happen--go satisfy any lingering questions you may have on your own. The subject at hand is Infinite Regression: Valid Reasoning or No? Now do you have any meaningful comments on this subject? --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 01:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T07:23:43Z

Knowthetruth:

'''No.''' [[Infinite regression]] is a cop-out. It is closely akin to [[circular reasoning]], except that the line of reasoning is not so much a circle as a spiral, into the infinite past or at least through an infinite number of prior steps. For example: How did life originate on earth? It didn't--it couldn't have. So where did it come from? Did [[God]] create it? No--no God-talk in [[science|scientific]] circles. ([[Francis H. Crick]] once wrote a nasty letter to [[Winston Churchill]] suggesting that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel at [[Oxford University]].) Therefore, life was deposited on earth from the outside. How? By a [[ballistic missile]] or a [[comet]]'s tail. Where did that life come from? From another [[planet]]. But how did life arise on that other planet? It didn't--couldn't have--too much information. Did God create life on that other planet? Oh, no. Therefore life was deposited on ''that'' planet as well. Where did ''that'' life come from? From ''another'' ballistic missile. And so on, and so on, for an infinite number of steps.

Am I the only one who recognizes such a line of reasoning as absurd? And not merely absurd, but self-serving of the interests of those seeking to deny God's existence and His role as Creator. It is a very travesty of [[logic]], and that is why I sought to classify it as a [[logical fallacy]].

Why, then, is it ''not'' a logical fallacy? Can an infinite regression ever exist in nature? I'm waiting for the evidence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Postscript: This is a special-case type of page. The "article," as such, ''is'' discussion. That's the nature of a debate topic.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''. There is no ''a priori'' reason to rule out infinite regression in all circumstances. It may seem a superficially unsatisfying explaination to state "it's turtles all the way down", but that doesn't mean that infinite regression cannot exist. Of course, if there is a finite limit to the problem at hand, such as the age of the universe in the panspermia problem, then infinite regression cannot work. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'''Counter'''. That is precisely the problem. The age of the universe ''is'' limited. No reputable [[Astronomy|astronomer]] accepts a steady-state universe anymore. The most that anyone will accept is a cyclic universe--but [[Albert Einstein]] held that a cyclic universe is impossible, because our universe doesn't have enough mass to stop expansion and bring everything back into a clump again. Einstein was slow to realize that, of course, but in the end he yielded to the demands of logic, his own wonderfully self-consistent theory, and observations that he could not controvert.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Firstly, I am not arguing for a "big crush" model. I defer to the opinions of my phycist collegues who assert that a massively old and thus dilute universe could provide the conditions for new "big bangs" or useful material. If it is possible, then there is no ''a priori'' reasons to dismiss infite regression out of hand. Furthermore infinite regression relates to more than temporal regression. You will be familure with cells being explained in terms of chemicals, chemicals in terms of atoms, and so on until we reach quantum theory, or more controversially string theory. There is no ''a priori'' reason to simply assume than this line of explaination stops there, or even ever stops, although I think it probable that it does eventually stop. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I use inappropriate formatting for a discussion page, I'm new to wiki formatting, and I'm very open to guidance on how to use it properly.

I'd like to make a couple of comments here. Fact: All the matter, energy, space and time of ''this'' universe began at it's original Creation. As far as '''''this''''' universe goes, there is absolutely no naturalistic explanation for causation beyond the origin of this universe--simple logic reasoning. Any attempt to do so is by it's very nature inherently a '''super'''-natural (metaphysical) appeal. Therefore (I'm assuming it's acceptable here in discussions to make personal assertions, again correct me if I'm wrong...) let's have no further statements proclaiming 'infinite regressions' beyond the definite '''''finite''''' temporal bounds of this universe. It certainly '''is''' logically ''a priori'' impossible.

On the question of life: The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to the materialist origin of life researcher. There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of living cells (particularly amidst the seriously hostile conditions which were known to exist here on earth at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.

On fallacies: The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature. That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist :^). All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other than possibly as wishful thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^). There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology. The most important one for this issue is that it showed definitively the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator". This is a concept from Thermodynamics. The accuracy of the initial measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced by several other instruments and research teams, and all strongly confirmed the finding--namely this: That the universe as a whole radiates '''''all''''' it's energy (that is, 100%). If you do a little mechanics analysis (remember E=MC^2?) then you realize- There's no energy left over to provide for a so-called 'bounce'.

Additionally, not only is the universe shown to be expanding, but it is now known that it's ''rate'' of expansion is '''increasing'''. If gravitational braking alone was the only action taking place, you would expect a ''decrease'' in it's rate, not an ''increase''. And, even accounting for Dark Matter, the universe is ''far'' short of the critical mass-density required to gravitationally halt it's expansion, even if Dark Energy wasn't in fact the dominant factor, as it is conclusively known to be.

--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Re "do a little mechanics analysis." Go on, then. Let's see it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I'm assuming that is meant as a goad? :^) It's a simple inertia problem. If you'd like to bone up on your Inertia studies, let me in turn invite you to do a little exploration on your own: [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Did it occur to you that in a collapsing Universe, precisely the phenomenon Einstein describes there leads to radiation pressure opposing that collapse?

:There are good reasons to reject the old bouncing models, but this isn't one of them. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Radiation left over from what... the now completely expended mass-energy after total external radiation into the black-body? Think about it for a minute. I believe this is the second strongest argument against a bouncing-universe directly after Dark Energy--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 19:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Radiation ''is'' mass-energy. And it hasn't been 'expended.' How can you expend a quantity that's (locally) conserved? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

You make my point (albeit unwillingly) exactly. Study the notion of the black-body in thermodynamics. The mass-energy '''''is''''' expended (out of this universe) by the radiation you speak of. BTW, there is a fundamental flaw in the model of collapse you mentioned previously. (It's related to the point I just made) If you integrate the radiation-pressure vectors in an enclosed volume they balance to zero. Remember the radiation is in all directions. So in your model, radiation would actually play no factor in the motion of the masses. All that would be left are the effects of Brownian-motions and gravity. In actual fact, however, the universe is ''not'' in an enclosed volume, and the radiation-pressure vectors integrated over time would actually induce interior motion of the volume ''towards'' your supposed collapse, not the reverse. The universe "leaks", and like air escaping from a balloon, the average thrust on any given particle would eventually be interior. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'Out of this universe?' Where exactly do you think it's going? And yes, radiation is in all directions. So what? Same is true of molecular motion in an ideal gas, but that doesn't prevent them from exerting positive pressure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I think my previous comment explains where I believe the radiation to be going. Since you know of the term Ideal Gas, you may already understand the balance to zero of the radiation pressure. But it distinctly appears you are postulating what can only be described as an enclosed universe, and in a static enclosed volume radiated pressure will '''''not''''' exert positive pressure on the system as a whole. It will be zero in Ideal Gas. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:29, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Outside the Universe somewhere, apparently. Well, that's thoroughly meaningless. The Universe doesn't ''have'' an outside.

:I don't need to postulate an enclosed Universe (by which I assume you mean a finite, unbounded Universe). The radiation is not leaving the Universe, and so its mass-energy is not being 'expended.' It's still available, and in a collapsing Universe it'll end up increasing in temperature (not to mention increasing the temperature of the matter fields it interacts with), and producing increasing outwards pressure, just as compressing an ideal gas with a piston will produce pressure resisting that compression. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

'The Universe doesn't have an outside'? The simple finite nature of the universe makes it intrinsically self-evident there '''is''' reality outside this universe. And the reason engineers design pistons with cylinders and heads around them is for the simple fact that advantage can be taken of the gas resistance you mentioned to do a little work (thus reducing that system's energy quotient, BTW, think about it with me here...) The universe has no such 'cylinder-wall', and during any theoretical collapse, would eventually radiate it's energy ''away'' from itself, and any interior radiative pressure in the system would also eventually disappear. However, neither of those is the actual point. The universe is ''currently, right now, at this moment''--a '''perfect black-body radiator'''. We don't need to theorize about some elusive universal collapse. The current universe radiates '''''everything'''''.

Look, I am not going to continue responding to your cyclic arguments on this matter of gas thermodynamics any further in this forum, the literature is out there as to ''why'' the [[COBE]] and [[WMAP]] and other results confirm this is the ''first'' and ''only'' expansion of the universe that will ever happen--go satisfy any lingering questions you may have on your own. The subject at hand is Infinite Regression: Valid Reasoning or No? Now do you have any meaningful comments on this subject? --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 01:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T06:59:44Z

Knowthetruth:

'''No.''' [[Infinite regression]] is a cop-out. It is closely akin to [[circular reasoning]], except that the line of reasoning is not so much a circle as a spiral, into the infinite past or at least through an infinite number of prior steps. For example: How did life originate on earth? It didn't--it couldn't have. So where did it come from? Did [[God]] create it? No--no God-talk in [[science|scientific]] circles. ([[Francis H. Crick]] once wrote a nasty letter to [[Winston Churchill]] suggesting that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel at [[Oxford University]].) Therefore, life was deposited on earth from the outside. How? By a [[ballistic missile]] or a [[comet]]'s tail. Where did that life come from? From another [[planet]]. But how did life arise on that other planet? It didn't--couldn't have--too much information. Did God create life on that other planet? Oh, no. Therefore life was deposited on ''that'' planet as well. Where did ''that'' life come from? From ''another'' ballistic missile. And so on, and so on, for an infinite number of steps.

Am I the only one who recognizes such a line of reasoning as absurd? And not merely absurd, but self-serving of the interests of those seeking to deny God's existence and His role as Creator. It is a very travesty of [[logic]], and that is why I sought to classify it as a [[logical fallacy]].

Why, then, is it ''not'' a logical fallacy? Can an infinite regression ever exist in nature? I'm waiting for the evidence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Postscript: This is a special-case type of page. The "article," as such, ''is'' discussion. That's the nature of a debate topic.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''. There is no ''a priori'' reason to rule out infinite regression in all circumstances. It may seem a superficially unsatisfying explaination to state "it's turtles all the way down", but that doesn't mean that infinite regression cannot exist. Of course, if there is a finite limit to the problem at hand, such as the age of the universe in the panspermia problem, then infinite regression cannot work. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'''Counter'''. That is precisely the problem. The age of the universe ''is'' limited. No reputable [[Astronomy|astronomer]] accepts a steady-state universe anymore. The most that anyone will accept is a cyclic universe--but [[Albert Einstein]] held that a cyclic universe is impossible, because our universe doesn't have enough mass to stop expansion and bring everything back into a clump again. Einstein was slow to realize that, of course, but in the end he yielded to the demands of logic, his own wonderfully self-consistent theory, and observations that he could not controvert.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Firstly, I am not arguing for a "big crush" model. I defer to the opinions of my phycist collegues who assert that a massively old and thus dilute universe could provide the conditions for new "big bangs" or useful material. If it is possible, then there is no ''a priori'' reasons to dismiss infite regression out of hand. Furthermore infinite regression relates to more than temporal regression. You will be familure with cells being explained in terms of chemicals, chemicals in terms of atoms, and so on until we reach quantum theory, or more controversially string theory. There is no ''a priori'' reason to simply assume than this line of explaination stops there, or even ever stops, although I think it probable that it does eventually stop. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I use inappropriate formatting for a discussion page, I'm new to wiki formatting, and I'm very open to guidance on how to use it properly.

I'd like to make a couple of comments here. Fact: All the matter, energy, space and time of ''this'' universe began at it's original Creation. As far as '''''this''''' universe goes, there is absolutely no naturalistic explanation for causation beyond the origin of this universe--simple logic reasoning. Any attempt to do so is by it's very nature inherently a '''super'''-natural (metaphysical) appeal. Therefore (I'm assuming it's acceptable here in discussions to make personal assertions, again correct me if I'm wrong...) let's have no further statements proclaiming 'infinite regressions' beyond the definite '''''finite''''' temporal bounds of this universe. It certainly '''is''' logically ''a priori'' impossible.

On the question of life: The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to the materialist origin of life researcher. There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of living cells (particularly amidst the seriously hostile conditions which were known to exist here on earth at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.

On fallacies: The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature. That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist :^). All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other than possibly as wishful thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^). There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology. The most important one for this issue is that it showed definitively the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator". This is a concept from Thermodynamics. The accuracy of the initial measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced by several other instruments and research teams, and all strongly confirmed the finding--namely this: That the universe as a whole radiates '''''all''''' it's energy (that is, 100%). If you do a little mechanics analysis (remember E=MC^2?) then you realize- There's no energy left over to provide for a so-called 'bounce'.

Additionally, not only is the universe shown to be expanding, but it is now known that it's ''rate'' of expansion is '''increasing'''. If gravitational braking alone was the only action taking place, you would expect a ''decrease'' in it's rate, not an ''increase''. And, even accounting for Dark Matter, the universe is ''far'' short of the critical mass-density required to gravitationally halt it's expansion, even if Dark Energy wasn't in fact the dominant factor, as it is conclusively known to be.

--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Re "do a little mechanics analysis." Go on, then. Let's see it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I'm assuming that is meant as a goad? :^) It's a simple inertia problem. If you'd like to bone up on your Inertia studies, let me in turn invite you to do a little exploration on your own: [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Did it occur to you that in a collapsing Universe, precisely the phenomenon Einstein describes there leads to radiation pressure opposing that collapse?

:There are good reasons to reject the old bouncing models, but this isn't one of them. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Radiation left over from what... the now completely expended mass-energy after total external radiation into the black-body? Think about it for a minute. I believe this is the second strongest argument against a bouncing-universe directly after Dark Energy--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 19:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Radiation ''is'' mass-energy. And it hasn't been 'expended.' How can you expend a quantity that's (locally) conserved? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

You make my point (albeit unwillingly) exactly. Study the notion of the black-body in thermodynamics. The mass-energy '''''is''''' expended (out of this universe) by the radiation you speak of. BTW, there is a fundamental flaw in the model of collapse you mentioned previously. (It's related to the point I just made) If you integrate the radiation-pressure vectors in an enclosed volume they balance to zero. Remember the radiation is in all directions. So in your model, radiation would actually play no factor in the motion of the masses. All that would be left are the effects of Brownian-motions and gravity. In actual fact, however, the universe is ''not'' in an enclosed volume, and the radiation-pressure vectors integrated over time would actually induce interior motion of the volume ''towards'' your supposed collapse, not the reverse. The universe "leaks", and like air escaping from a balloon, the average thrust on any given particle would eventually be interior. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'Out of this universe?' Where exactly do you think it's going? And yes, radiation is in all directions. So what? Same is true of molecular motion in an ideal gas, but that doesn't prevent them from exerting positive pressure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I think my previous comment explains where I believe the radiation to be going. Since you know of the term Ideal Gas, you may already understand the balance to zero of the radiation pressure. But it distinctly appears you are postulating what can only be described as an enclosed universe, and in an enclosed volume radiated pressure will '''''not''''' exert positive pressure on the system as a whole. It will be zero in Ideal Gas. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:29, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Outside the Universe somewhere, apparently. Well, that's thoroughly meaningless. The Universe doesn't ''have'' an outside.

:I don't need to postulate an enclosed Universe (by which I assume you mean a finite, unbounded Universe). The radiation is not leaving the Universe, and so its mass-energy is not being 'expended.' It's still available, and in a collapsing Universe it'll end up increasing in temperature (not to mention increasing the temperature of the matter fields it interacts with), and producing increasing outwards pressure, just as compressing an ideal gas with a piston will produce pressure resisting that compression. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

'The Universe doesn't have an outside'? The simple finite nature of the universe makes it intrinsically self-evident there '''is''' reality outside this universe. And the reason engineers design pistons with cylinders around them is for the simple fact that advantage can be taken of the gas resistance you mentioned to do a little work (thus reducing that system's energy quotient, BTW, think about it with me here...) The universe has no such 'cylinder-wall', and during any theoretical collapse, would eventually radiate it's energy ''away'' from itself, and any interior radiative pressure in the system would disappear. However, neither of those is the actual point. The universe is ''currently, right now, at this moment''--a '''perfect black-body radiator'''. We don't need to theorize about some elusive universal collapse. The current universe radiates '''''everything'''''.

Look, I am not going to continue responding to your cyclic arguments on this matter of gas thermodynamics any further in this forum, the literature is out there as to ''why'' the [[COBE]] and [[WMAP]] and other results confirm this is the ''first'' and ''only'' expansion of the universe that will ever happen--go satisfy any lingering questions you may have on your own. The subject at hand is Infinite Regression: Valid Reasoning or No? Now do you have any meaningful comments on this subject? --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 01:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T06:58:23Z

Knowthetruth:

'''No.''' [[Infinite regression]] is a cop-out. It is closely akin to [[circular reasoning]], except that the line of reasoning is not so much a circle as a spiral, into the infinite past or at least through an infinite number of prior steps. For example: How did life originate on earth? It didn't--it couldn't have. So where did it come from? Did [[God]] create it? No--no God-talk in [[science|scientific]] circles. ([[Francis H. Crick]] once wrote a nasty letter to [[Winston Churchill]] suggesting that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel at [[Oxford University]].) Therefore, life was deposited on earth from the outside. How? By a [[ballistic missile]] or a [[comet]]'s tail. Where did that life come from? From another [[planet]]. But how did life arise on that other planet? It didn't--couldn't have--too much information. Did God create life on that other planet? Oh, no. Therefore life was deposited on ''that'' planet as well. Where did ''that'' life come from? From ''another'' ballistic missile. And so on, and so on, for an infinite number of steps.

Am I the only one who recognizes such a line of reasoning as absurd? And not merely absurd, but self-serving of the interests of those seeking to deny God's existence and His role as Creator. It is a very travesty of [[logic]], and that is why I sought to classify it as a [[logical fallacy]].

Why, then, is it ''not'' a logical fallacy? Can an infinite regression ever exist in nature? I'm waiting for the evidence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Postscript: This is a special-case type of page. The "article," as such, ''is'' discussion. That's the nature of a debate topic.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''. There is no ''a priori'' reason to rule out infinite regression in all circumstances. It may seem a superficially unsatisfying explaination to state "it's turtles all the way down", but that doesn't mean that infinite regression cannot exist. Of course, if there is a finite limit to the problem at hand, such as the age of the universe in the panspermia problem, then infinite regression cannot work. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'''Counter'''. That is precisely the problem. The age of the universe ''is'' limited. No reputable [[Astronomy|astronomer]] accepts a steady-state universe anymore. The most that anyone will accept is a cyclic universe--but [[Albert Einstein]] held that a cyclic universe is impossible, because our universe doesn't have enough mass to stop expansion and bring everything back into a clump again. Einstein was slow to realize that, of course, but in the end he yielded to the demands of logic, his own wonderfully self-consistent theory, and observations that he could not controvert.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Firstly, I am not arguing for a "big crush" model. I defer to the opinions of my phycist collegues who assert that a massively old and thus dilute universe could provide the conditions for new "big bangs" or useful material. If it is possible, then there is no ''a priori'' reasons to dismiss infite regression out of hand. Furthermore infinite regression relates to more than temporal regression. You will be familure with cells being explained in terms of chemicals, chemicals in terms of atoms, and so on until we reach quantum theory, or more controversially string theory. There is no ''a priori'' reason to simply assume than this line of explaination stops there, or even ever stops, although I think it probable that it does eventually stop. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I use inappropriate formatting for a discussion page, I'm new to wiki formatting, and I'm very open to guidance on how to use it properly.

I'd like to make a couple of comments here. Fact: All the matter, energy, space and time of ''this'' universe began at it's original Creation. As far as '''''this''''' universe goes, there is absolutely no naturalistic explanation for causation beyond the origin of this universe--simple logic reasoning. Any attempt to do so is by it's very nature inherently a '''super'''-natural (metaphysical) appeal. Therefore (I'm assuming it's acceptable here in discussions to make personal assertions, again correct me if I'm wrong...) let's have no further statements proclaiming 'infinite regressions' beyond the definite '''''finite''''' temporal bounds of this universe. It certainly '''is''' logically ''a priori'' impossible.

On the question of life: The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to the materialist origin of life researcher. There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of living cells (particularly amidst the seriously hostile conditions which were known to exist here on earth at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.

On fallacies: The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature. That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist :^). All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other than possibly as wishful thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^). There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology. The most important one for this issue is that it showed definitively the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator". This is a concept from Thermodynamics. The accuracy of the initial measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced by several other instruments and research teams, and all strongly confirmed the finding--namely this: That the universe as a whole radiates '''''all''''' it's energy (that is, 100%). If you do a little mechanics analysis (remember E=MC^2?) then you realize- There's no energy left over to provide for a so-called 'bounce'.

Additionally, not only is the universe shown to be expanding, but it is now known that it's ''rate'' of expansion is '''increasing'''. If gravitational braking alone was the only action taking place, you would expect a ''decrease'' in it's rate, not an ''increase''. And, even accounting for Dark Matter, the universe is ''far'' short of the critical mass-density required to gravitationally halt it's expansion, even if Dark Energy wasn't in fact the dominant factor, as it is conclusively known to be.

--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Re "do a little mechanics analysis." Go on, then. Let's see it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I'm assuming that is meant as a goad? :^) It's a simple inertia problem. If you'd like to bone up on your Inertia studies, let me in turn invite you to do a little exploration on your own: [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Did it occur to you that in a collapsing Universe, precisely the phenomenon Einstein describes there leads to radiation pressure opposing that collapse?

:There are good reasons to reject the old bouncing models, but this isn't one of them. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Radiation left over from what... the now completely expended mass-energy after total external radiation into the black-body? Think about it for a minute. I believe this is the second strongest argument against a bouncing-universe directly after Dark Energy--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 19:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Radiation ''is'' mass-energy. And it hasn't been 'expended.' How can you expend a quantity that's (locally) conserved? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

You make my point (albeit unwillingly) exactly. Study the notion of the black-body in thermodynamics. The mass-energy '''''is''''' expended (out of this universe) by the radiation you speak of. BTW, there is a fundamental flaw in the model of collapse you mentioned previously. (It's related to the point I just made) If you integrate the radiation-pressure vectors in an enclosed volume they balance to zero. Remember the radiation is in all directions. So in your model, radiation would actually play no factor in the motion of the masses. All that would be left are the effects of Brownian-motions and gravity. In actual fact, however, the universe is ''not'' in an enclosed volume, and the radiation-pressure vectors integrated over time would actually induce interior motion of the volume ''towards'' your supposed collapse, not the reverse. The universe "leaks", and like air escaping from a balloon, the average thrust on any given particle would eventually be interior. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'Out of this universe?' Where exactly do you think it's going? And yes, radiation is in all directions. So what? Same is true of molecular motion in an ideal gas, but that doesn't prevent them from exerting positive pressure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I think my previous comment explains where I believe the radiation to be going. Since you know of the term Ideal Gas, you may already understand the balance to zero of the radiation pressure. But it distinctly appears you are postulating what can only be described as an enclosed universe, and in an enclosed volume radiated pressure will '''''not''''' exert positive pressure on the system as a whole. It will be zero in Ideal Gas. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:29, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Outside the Universe somewhere, apparently. Well, that's thoroughly meaningless. The Universe doesn't ''have'' an outside.

:I don't need to postulate an enclosed Universe (by which I assume you mean a finite, unbounded Universe). The radiation is not leaving the Universe, and so its mass-energy is not being 'expended.' It's still available, and in a collapsing Universe it'll end up increasing in temperature (not to mention increasing the temperature of the matter fields it interacts with), and producing increasing outwards pressure, just as compressing an ideal gas with a piston will produce pressure resisting that compression. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

'The Universe doesn't have an outside'? The simple finite nature of the universe makes it intrinsically self-evident there '''is''' reality outside the universe. And the reason engineers design pistons with cylinders around them is for the simple fact that advantage can be taken of the gas resistance you mentioned to do a little work (thus reducing that system's energy quotient, BTW, think about it with me here...) The universe has no such 'cylinder-wall', and during any theoretical collapse, would eventually radiate it's energy ''away'' from itself, and any interior radiative pressure in the system would disappear. However, neither of those is the actual point. The universe is ''currently, right now, at this moment''--a '''perfect black-body radiator'''. We don't need to theorize about some elusive universal collapse. The current universe radiates '''''everything'''''.

Look, I am not going to continue responding to your cyclic arguments on this matter of gas thermodynamics any further in this forum, the literature is out there as to ''why'' the [[COBE]] and [[WMAP]] and other results confirm this is the ''first'' and ''only'' expansion of the universe that will ever happen--go satisfy any lingering questions you may have on your own. The subject at hand is Infinite Regression: Valid Reasoning or No? Now do you have any meaningful comments on this subject? --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 01:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T06:55:36Z

Knowthetruth:

'''No.''' [[Infinite regression]] is a cop-out. It is closely akin to [[circular reasoning]], except that the line of reasoning is not so much a circle as a spiral, into the infinite past or at least through an infinite number of prior steps. For example: How did life originate on earth? It didn't--it couldn't have. So where did it come from? Did [[God]] create it? No--no God-talk in [[science|scientific]] circles. ([[Francis H. Crick]] once wrote a nasty letter to [[Winston Churchill]] suggesting that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel at [[Oxford University]].) Therefore, life was deposited on earth from the outside. How? By a [[ballistic missile]] or a [[comet]]'s tail. Where did that life come from? From another [[planet]]. But how did life arise on that other planet? It didn't--couldn't have--too much information. Did God create life on that other planet? Oh, no. Therefore life was deposited on ''that'' planet as well. Where did ''that'' life come from? From ''another'' ballistic missile. And so on, and so on, for an infinite number of steps.

Am I the only one who recognizes such a line of reasoning as absurd? And not merely absurd, but self-serving of the interests of those seeking to deny God's existence and His role as Creator. It is a very travesty of [[logic]], and that is why I sought to classify it as a [[logical fallacy]].

Why, then, is it ''not'' a logical fallacy? Can an infinite regression ever exist in nature? I'm waiting for the evidence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Postscript: This is a special-case type of page. The "article," as such, ''is'' discussion. That's the nature of a debate topic.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''. There is no ''a priori'' reason to rule out infinite regression in all circumstances. It may seem a superficially unsatisfying explaination to state "it's turtles all the way down", but that doesn't mean that infinite regression cannot exist. Of course, if there is a finite limit to the problem at hand, such as the age of the universe in the panspermia problem, then infinite regression cannot work. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'''Counter'''. That is precisely the problem. The age of the universe ''is'' limited. No reputable [[Astronomy|astronomer]] accepts a steady-state universe anymore. The most that anyone will accept is a cyclic universe--but [[Albert Einstein]] held that a cyclic universe is impossible, because our universe doesn't have enough mass to stop expansion and bring everything back into a clump again. Einstein was slow to realize that, of course, but in the end he yielded to the demands of logic, his own wonderfully self-consistent theory, and observations that he could not controvert.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Firstly, I am not arguing for a "big crush" model. I defer to the opinions of my phycist collegues who assert that a massively old and thus dilute universe could provide the conditions for new "big bangs" or useful material. If it is possible, then there is no ''a priori'' reasons to dismiss infite regression out of hand. Furthermore infinite regression relates to more than temporal regression. You will be familure with cells being explained in terms of chemicals, chemicals in terms of atoms, and so on until we reach quantum theory, or more controversially string theory. There is no ''a priori'' reason to simply assume than this line of explaination stops there, or even ever stops, although I think it probable that it does eventually stop. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I use inappropriate formatting for a discussion page, I'm new to wiki formatting, and I'm very open to guidance on how to use it properly.

I'd like to make a couple of comments here. Fact: All the matter, energy, space and time of ''this'' universe began at it's original Creation. As far as '''''this''''' universe goes, there is absolutely no naturalistic explanation for causation beyond the origin of this universe--simple logic reasoning. Any attempt to do so is by it's very nature inherently a '''super'''-natural (metaphysical) appeal. Therefore (I'm assuming it's acceptable here in discussions to make personal assertions, again correct me if I'm wrong...) let's have no further statements proclaiming 'infinite regressions' beyond the definite '''''finite''''' temporal bounds of this universe. It certainly '''is''' logically ''a priori'' impossible.

On the question of life: The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to the materialist origin of life researcher. There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of living cells (particularly amidst the seriously hostile conditions which were known to exist here on earth at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.

On fallacies: The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature. That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist :^). All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other than possibly as wishful thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^). There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology. The most important one for this issue is that it showed definitively the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator". This is a concept from Thermodynamics. The accuracy of the initial measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced by several other instruments and research teams, and all strongly confirmed the finding--namely this: That the universe as a whole radiates '''''all''''' it's energy (that is, 100%). If you do a little mechanics analysis (remember E=MC^2?) then you realize- There's no energy left over to provide for a so-called 'bounce'.

Additionally, not only is the universe shown to be expanding, but it is now known that it's ''rate'' of expansion is '''increasing'''. If gravitational braking alone was the only action taking place, you would expect a ''decrease'' in it's rate, not an ''increase''. And, even accounting for Dark Matter, the universe is ''far'' short of the critical mass-density required to gravitationally halt it's expansion, even if Dark Energy wasn't in fact the dominant factor, as it is conclusively known to be.

--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Re "do a little mechanics analysis." Go on, then. Let's see it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I'm assuming that is meant as a goad? :^) It's a simple inertia problem. If you'd like to bone up on your Inertia studies, let me in turn invite you to do a little exploration on your own: [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Did it occur to you that in a collapsing Universe, precisely the phenomenon Einstein describes there leads to radiation pressure opposing that collapse?

:There are good reasons to reject the old bouncing models, but this isn't one of them. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Radiation left over from what... the now completely expended mass-energy after total external radiation into the black-body? Think about it for a minute. I believe this is the second strongest argument against a bouncing-universe directly after Dark Energy--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 19:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Radiation ''is'' mass-energy. And it hasn't been 'expended.' How can you expend a quantity that's (locally) conserved? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

You make my point (albeit unwillingly) exactly. Study the notion of the black-body in thermodynamics. The mass-energy '''''is''''' expended (out of this universe) by the radiation you speak of. BTW, there is a fundamental flaw in the model of collapse you mentioned previously. (It's related to the point I just made) If you integrate the radiation-pressure vectors in an enclosed volume they balance to zero. Remember the radiation is in all directions. So in your model, radiation would actually play no factor in the motion of the masses. All that would be left are the effects of Brownian-motions and gravity. In actual fact, however, the universe is ''not'' in an enclosed volume, and the radiation-pressure vectors integrated over time would actually induce interior motion of the volume ''towards'' your supposed collapse, not the reverse. The universe "leaks", and like air escaping from a balloon, the average thrust on any given particle would eventually be interior. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'Out of this universe?' Where exactly do you think it's going? And yes, radiation is in all directions. So what? Same is true of molecular motion in an ideal gas, but that doesn't prevent them from exerting positive pressure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I think my previous comment explains where I believe the radiation to be going. Since you know of the term Ideal Gas, you may already understand the balance to zero of the radiation pressure. But it distinctly appears you are postulating what can only be described as an enclosed universe, and in an enclosed volume radiated pressure will '''''not''''' exert positive pressure on the system as a whole. It will be zero in Ideal Gas. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:29, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Outside the Universe somewhere, apparently. Well, that's thoroughly meaningless. The Universe doesn't ''have'' an outside.

:I don't need to postulate an enclosed Universe (by which I assume you mean a finite, unbounded Universe). The radiation is not leaving the Universe, and so its mass-energy is not being 'expended.' It's still available, and in a collapsing Universe it'll end up increasing in temperature (not to mention increasing the temperature of the matter fields it interacts with), and producing increasing outwards pressure, just as compressing an ideal gas with a piston will produce pressure resisting that compression. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

'The Universe doesn't have an outside'? The simple finite nature of the universe makes it intrinsically self-evident there '''is''' reality outside the universe. And the reason engineers design pistons with cylinders around them is for the simple fact that advantage can be taken of the gas resistance you mentioned to do a little work (thus reducing that system's energy quotient, BTW, think about it with me here...) The universe has no such 'cylinder-wall', and during any theoretical collapse, would eventually radiate it's energy ''away'' from itself, and any interior radiative pressure in the system would disappear. However, neither of those is the actual point. The universe is ''currently, right now, at this moment''--a '''perfect black-body radiator'''. We don't need to theorize about some elusive universal collapse. The current universe radiates '''''everything'''''.

Look, I am not going to continue responding to your cyclic arguments on this matter of gas thermodynamics any further in this forum, the literature is out there as to ''why'' the [[COBE]] and [[WMAP]] and other results confirm this is the ''first'' and ''only'' expansion of the universe that will ever happen--go satisfy any lingering questions you may have on your own. The subject at hand is Infinite Regression--Valid Reasoning or No? Now do you have any meaningful comments on this subject? --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 01:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T06:54:07Z

Knowthetruth:

'''No.''' [[Infinite regression]] is a cop-out. It is closely akin to [[circular reasoning]], except that the line of reasoning is not so much a circle as a spiral, into the infinite past or at least through an infinite number of prior steps. For example: How did life originate on earth? It didn't--it couldn't have. So where did it come from? Did [[God]] create it? No--no God-talk in [[science|scientific]] circles. ([[Francis H. Crick]] once wrote a nasty letter to [[Winston Churchill]] suggesting that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel at [[Oxford University]].) Therefore, life was deposited on earth from the outside. How? By a [[ballistic missile]] or a [[comet]]'s tail. Where did that life come from? From another [[planet]]. But how did life arise on that other planet? It didn't--couldn't have--too much information. Did God create life on that other planet? Oh, no. Therefore life was deposited on ''that'' planet as well. Where did ''that'' life come from? From ''another'' ballistic missile. And so on, and so on, for an infinite number of steps.

Am I the only one who recognizes such a line of reasoning as absurd? And not merely absurd, but self-serving of the interests of those seeking to deny God's existence and His role as Creator. It is a very travesty of [[logic]], and that is why I sought to classify it as a [[logical fallacy]].

Why, then, is it ''not'' a logical fallacy? Can an infinite regression ever exist in nature? I'm waiting for the evidence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Postscript: This is a special-case type of page. The "article," as such, ''is'' discussion. That's the nature of a debate topic.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''. There is no ''a priori'' reason to rule out infinite regression in all circumstances. It may seem a superficially unsatisfying explaination to state "it's turtles all the way down", but that doesn't mean that infinite regression cannot exist. Of course, if there is a finite limit to the problem at hand, such as the age of the universe in the panspermia problem, then infinite regression cannot work. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'''Counter'''. That is precisely the problem. The age of the universe ''is'' limited. No reputable [[Astronomy|astronomer]] accepts a steady-state universe anymore. The most that anyone will accept is a cyclic universe--but [[Albert Einstein]] held that a cyclic universe is impossible, because our universe doesn't have enough mass to stop expansion and bring everything back into a clump again. Einstein was slow to realize that, of course, but in the end he yielded to the demands of logic, his own wonderfully self-consistent theory, and observations that he could not controvert.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Firstly, I am not arguing for a "big crush" model. I defer to the opinions of my phycist collegues who assert that a massively old and thus dilute universe could provide the conditions for new "big bangs" or useful material. If it is possible, then there is no ''a priori'' reasons to dismiss infite regression out of hand. Furthermore infinite regression relates to more than temporal regression. You will be familure with cells being explained in terms of chemicals, chemicals in terms of atoms, and so on until we reach quantum theory, or more controversially string theory. There is no ''a priori'' reason to simply assume than this line of explaination stops there, or even ever stops, although I think it probable that it does eventually stop. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I use inappropriate formatting for a discussion page, I'm new to wiki formatting, and I'm very open to guidance on how to use it properly.

I'd like to make a couple of comments here. Fact: All the matter, energy, space and time of ''this'' universe began at it's original Creation. As far as '''''this''''' universe goes, there is absolutely no naturalistic explanation for causation beyond the origin of this universe--simple logic reasoning. Any attempt to do so is by it's very nature inherently a '''super'''-natural (metaphysical) appeal. Therefore (I'm assuming it's acceptable here in discussions to make personal assertions, again correct me if I'm wrong...) let's have no further statements proclaiming 'infinite regressions' beyond the definite '''''finite''''' temporal bounds of this universe. It certainly '''is''' logically ''a priori'' impossible.

On the question of life: The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to the materialist origin of life researcher. There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of living cells (particularly amidst the seriously hostile conditions which were known to exist here on earth at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.

On fallacies: The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature. That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist :^). All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other than possibly as wishful thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^). There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology. The most important one for this issue is that it showed definitively the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator". This is a concept from Thermodynamics. The accuracy of the initial measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced by several other instruments and research teams, and all strongly confirmed the finding--namely this: That the universe as a whole radiates '''''all''''' it's energy (that is, 100%). If you do a little mechanics analysis (remember E=MC^2?) then you realize- There's no energy left over to provide for a so-called 'bounce'.

Additionally, not only is the universe shown to be expanding, but it is now known that it's ''rate'' of expansion is '''increasing'''. If gravitational braking alone was the only action taking place, you would expect a ''decrease'' in it's rate, not an ''increase''. And, even accounting for Dark Matter, the universe is ''far'' short of the critical mass-density required to gravitationally halt it's expansion, even if Dark Energy wasn't in fact the dominant factor, as it is conclusively known to be.

--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Re "do a little mechanics analysis." Go on, then. Let's see it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I'm assuming that is meant as a goad? :^) It's a simple inertia problem. If you'd like to bone up on your Inertia studies, let me in turn invite you to do a little exploration on your own: [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Did it occur to you that in a collapsing Universe, precisely the phenomenon Einstein describes there leads to radiation pressure opposing that collapse?

:There are good reasons to reject the old bouncing models, but this isn't one of them. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Radiation left over from what... the now completely expended mass-energy after total external radiation into the black-body? Think about it for a minute. I believe this is the second strongest argument against a bouncing-universe directly after Dark Energy--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 19:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Radiation ''is'' mass-energy. And it hasn't been 'expended.' How can you expend a quantity that's (locally) conserved? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

You make my point (albeit unwillingly) exactly. Study the notion of the black-body in thermodynamics. The mass-energy '''''is''''' expended (out of this universe) by the radiation you speak of. BTW, there is a fundamental flaw in the model of collapse you mentioned previously. (It's related to the point I just made) If you integrate the radiation-pressure vectors in an enclosed volume they balance to zero. Remember the radiation is in all directions. So in your model, radiation would actually play no factor in the motion of the masses. All that would be left are the effects of Brownian-motions and gravity. In actual fact, however, the universe is ''not'' in an enclosed volume, and the radiation-pressure vectors integrated over time would actually induce interior motion of the volume ''towards'' your supposed collapse, not the reverse. The universe "leaks", and like air escaping from a balloon, the average thrust on any given particle would eventually be interior. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'Out of this universe?' Where exactly do you think it's going? And yes, radiation is in all directions. So what? Same is true of molecular motion in an ideal gas, but that doesn't prevent them from exerting positive pressure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I think my previous comment explains where I believe the radiation to be going. Since you know of the term Ideal Gas, you may already understand the balance to zero of the radiation pressure. But it distinctly appears you are postulating what can only be described as an enclosed universe, and in an enclosed volume radiated pressure will '''''not''''' exert positive pressure on the system as a whole. It will be zero in Ideal Gas. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:29, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Outside the Universe somewhere, apparently. Well, that's thoroughly meaningless. The Universe doesn't ''have'' an outside.

:I don't need to postulate an enclosed Universe (by which I assume you mean a finite, unbounded Universe). The radiation is not leaving the Universe, and so its mass-energy is not being 'expended.' It's still available, and in a collapsing Universe it'll end up increasing in temperature (not to mention increasing the temperature of the matter fields it interacts with), and producing increasing outwards pressure, just as compressing an ideal gas with a piston will produce pressure resisting that compression. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

'The Universe doesn't have an outside'? The simple finite nature of the universe makes it intrinsically self-evident there '''is''' reality outside the universe. And the reason engineers design pistons with cylinders around them is for the simple reason that advantage can be taken of the gas resistance you mentioned to do a little work (thus reducing that system's energy quotient, BTW. Think about it...) The universe has no such 'cylinder-wall', and during any theoretical collapse, would eventually radiate it's energy ''away'' from itself, and any interior radiative pressure in the system would disappear. However, neither of those is the actual point. The universe is ''currently, right now, at this moment''--a '''perfect black-body radiator'''. We don't need to theorize about some elusive universal collapse. The current universe radiates '''''everything'''''.

Look, I am not going to continue responding to your cyclic arguments on this matter of gas thermodynamics any further in this forum, the literature is out there as to ''why'' the [[COBE]] and [[WMAP]] and other results confirm this is the ''first'' and ''only'' expansion of the universe that will ever happen--go satisfy any lingering questions you may have on your own. The subject at hand is Infinite Regression--Valid Reasoning or No? Now do you have any meaningful comments on this subject? --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 01:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T06:52:00Z

Knowthetruth:

'''No.''' [[Infinite regression]] is a cop-out. It is closely akin to [[circular reasoning]], except that the line of reasoning is not so much a circle as a spiral, into the infinite past or at least through an infinite number of prior steps. For example: How did life originate on earth? It didn't--it couldn't have. So where did it come from? Did [[God]] create it? No--no God-talk in [[science|scientific]] circles. ([[Francis H. Crick]] once wrote a nasty letter to [[Winston Churchill]] suggesting that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel at [[Oxford University]].) Therefore, life was deposited on earth from the outside. How? By a [[ballistic missile]] or a [[comet]]'s tail. Where did that life come from? From another [[planet]]. But how did life arise on that other planet? It didn't--couldn't have--too much information. Did God create life on that other planet? Oh, no. Therefore life was deposited on ''that'' planet as well. Where did ''that'' life come from? From ''another'' ballistic missile. And so on, and so on, for an infinite number of steps.

Am I the only one who recognizes such a line of reasoning as absurd? And not merely absurd, but self-serving of the interests of those seeking to deny God's existence and His role as Creator. It is a very travesty of [[logic]], and that is why I sought to classify it as a [[logical fallacy]].

Why, then, is it ''not'' a logical fallacy? Can an infinite regression ever exist in nature? I'm waiting for the evidence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Postscript: This is a special-case type of page. The "article," as such, ''is'' discussion. That's the nature of a debate topic.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''. There is no ''a priori'' reason to rule out infinite regression in all circumstances. It may seem a superficially unsatisfying explaination to state "it's turtles all the way down", but that doesn't mean that infinite regression cannot exist. Of course, if there is a finite limit to the problem at hand, such as the age of the universe in the panspermia problem, then infinite regression cannot work. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'''Counter'''. That is precisely the problem. The age of the universe ''is'' limited. No reputable [[Astronomy|astronomer]] accepts a steady-state universe anymore. The most that anyone will accept is a cyclic universe--but [[Albert Einstein]] held that a cyclic universe is impossible, because our universe doesn't have enough mass to stop expansion and bring everything back into a clump again. Einstein was slow to realize that, of course, but in the end he yielded to the demands of logic, his own wonderfully self-consistent theory, and observations that he could not controvert.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Firstly, I am not arguing for a "big crush" model. I defer to the opinions of my phycist collegues who assert that a massively old and thus dilute universe could provide the conditions for new "big bangs" or useful material. If it is possible, then there is no ''a priori'' reasons to dismiss infite regression out of hand. Furthermore infinite regression relates to more than temporal regression. You will be familure with cells being explained in terms of chemicals, chemicals in terms of atoms, and so on until we reach quantum theory, or more controversially string theory. There is no ''a priori'' reason to simply assume than this line of explaination stops there, or even ever stops, although I think it probable that it does eventually stop. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I use inappropriate formatting for a discussion page, I'm new to wiki formatting, and I'm very open to guidance on how to use it properly.

I'd like to make a couple of comments here. Fact: All the matter, energy, space and time of ''this'' universe began at it's original Creation. As far as '''''this''''' universe goes, there is absolutely no naturalistic explanation for causation beyond the origin of this universe--simple logic reasoning. Any attempt to do so is by it's very nature inherently a '''super'''-natural (metaphysical) appeal. Therefore (I'm assuming it's acceptable here in discussions to make personal assertions, again correct me if I'm wrong...) let's have no further statements proclaiming 'infinite regressions' beyond the definite '''''finite''''' temporal bounds of this universe. It certainly '''is''' logically ''a priori'' impossible.

On the question of life: The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to the materialist origin of life researcher. There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of living cells (particularly amidst the seriously hostile conditions which were known to exist here on earth at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.

On fallacies: The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature. That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist :^). All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other than possibly as wishful thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^). There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology. The most important one for this issue is that it showed definitively the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator". This is a concept from Thermodynamics. The accuracy of the initial measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced by several other instruments and research teams, and all strongly confirmed the finding--namely this: That the universe as a whole radiates '''''all''''' it's energy (that is, 100%). If you do a little mechanics analysis (remember E=MC^2?) then you realize- There's no energy left over to provide for a so-called 'bounce'.

Additionally, not only is the universe shown to be expanding, but it is now known that it's ''rate'' of expansion is '''increasing'''. If gravitational braking alone was the only action taking place, you would expect a ''decrease'' in it's rate, not an ''increase''. And, even accounting for Dark Matter, the universe is ''far'' short of the critical mass-density required to gravitationally halt it's expansion, even if Dark Energy wasn't in fact the dominant factor, as it is conclusively known to be.

--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Re "do a little mechanics analysis." Go on, then. Let's see it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I'm assuming that is meant as a goad? :^) It's a simple inertia problem. If you'd like to bone up on your Inertia studies, let me in turn invite you to do a little exploration on your own: [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Did it occur to you that in a collapsing Universe, precisely the phenomenon Einstein describes there leads to radiation pressure opposing that collapse?

:There are good reasons to reject the old bouncing models, but this isn't one of them. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Radiation left over from what... the now completely expended mass-energy after total external radiation into the black-body? Think about it for a minute. I believe this is the second strongest argument against a bouncing-universe directly after Dark Energy--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 19:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Radiation ''is'' mass-energy. And it hasn't been 'expended.' How can you expend a quantity that's (locally) conserved? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

You make my point (albeit unwillingly) exactly. Study the notion of the black-body in thermodynamics. The mass-energy '''''is''''' expended (out of this universe) by the radiation you speak of. BTW, there is a fundamental flaw in the model of collapse you mentioned previously. (It's related to the point I just made) If you integrate the radiation-pressure vectors in an enclosed volume they balance to zero. Remember the radiation is in all directions. So in your model, radiation would actually play no factor in the motion of the masses. All that would be left are the effects of Brownian-motions and gravity. In actual fact, however, the universe is ''not'' in an enclosed volume, and the radiation-pressure vectors integrated over time would actually induce interior motion of the volume ''towards'' your supposed collapse, not the reverse. The universe "leaks", and like air escaping from a balloon, the average thrust on any given particle would eventually be interior. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'Out of this universe?' Where exactly do you think it's going? And yes, radiation is in all directions. So what? Same is true of molecular motion in an ideal gas, but that doesn't prevent them from exerting positive pressure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I think my previous comment explains where I believe the radiation to be going. Since you know of the term Ideal Gas, you may already understand the balance to zero of the radiation pressure. But it distinctly appears you are postulating what can only be described as an enclosed universe, and in an enclosed volume radiated pressure will '''''not''''' exert positive pressure on the system as a whole. It will be zero in Ideal Gas. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:29, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Outside the Universe somewhere, apparently. Well, that's thoroughly meaningless. The Universe doesn't ''have'' an outside.

:I don't need to postulate an enclosed Universe (by which I assume you mean a finite, unbounded Universe). The radiation is not leaving the Universe, and so its mass-energy is not being 'expended.' It's still available, and in a collapsing Universe it'll end up increasing in temperature (not to mention increasing the temperature of the matter fields it interacts with), and producing increasing outwards pressure, just as compressing an ideal gas with a piston will produce pressure resisting that compression. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

'The Universe doesn't have an outside'? The simple finite nature of the universe makes it intrinsically self-evident there '''is''' reality outside the universe. And the reason engineers design pistons with cylinders around them is for the simple reason that advantage can be taken of the gas resistance you mentioned to do a little work (thus reducing that system's energy quotient, BTW. Think about it...) The universe has no such 'cylinder-wall', and during any theoretical collapse, would eventually radiate it's energy ''away'' from itself, and any interior radiative pressure in the system would disappear. However, neither of those is the actual point. The universe is ''currently, right now, at this moment''--a '''perfect black-body radiator'''. We don't need to theorize about some elusive universal collapse. The current universe radiates '''''everything'''''.

Look, I am not going to continue responding to your cyclic arguments on this matter of gas thermodynamics any further in this forum, the literature is out there as to *why* the [[COBE]] and [[WMAP]] and other results confirm this is the ''first'' and ''only'' expansion of the universe that will ever happen--go satisfy any lingering questions you may have on your own. The subject at hand is Infinite Regression--Valid Reasoning Or No. Now do you have any meaningful comments on this subject? --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 01:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Talk:Albert Einstein

2007-03-09T02:21:39Z

Knowthetruth:

This article is largely incorrect. Gravitons aren't predicted by the General Theory of Relativity. GPS satellites are 1) Useful and 2) Built with control systems that make relativistic corrections to compensate for the curvature of space caused by the earth. Predictions made by relativity which have been verified include: Black Holes, Gravitational Lensing, Spatial Twisting by Rotating Bodies, Extreme Time Distortions Near Black Holes, and Time Dilation by Spatial Curvature.

Gravitational Interferometers are also built to measure the gravity waves that are predicted by the general theory. They also have the inconvenient property of, you know, working.

:Along those lines, I don't know whether particle accelerators are considered "useful" but if built according to Newtonian physics I don't think any of them built since about the 1940s would have worked. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Thank you, JoshuaZ, for correcting the urban legend. Even most Christians concede Einstein's beliefs resembled a form of Deism. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:56, 5 March 2007 (EST)

==Einstein's fame==
Someone reverted my edits without comment. My version was:
: Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for being regarded as a great genius. He is perhaps best known for work on the theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], ...

I say this because Einstein's fame with the general public is not really for his "several great works of theoretical physics". Hardly anyone even knows what those were. But everybody knows Einstein as a great genius.

Also, the phrase "his theories" is inaccurate. Einstein did well-known work on relativity, but it wasn't Einstein's theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I didn't do the reversion, and I only agree with half of the reversion. Special Relativity was not "his [Einstein's] theory", so that should not have been reverted.

:: But I do agree with reverting the claim that Einstein was "regarded as a great genius." The media promotes people as geniuses for a variety of their own reasons, and it often has no basis in fact. [[Henry Kissinger]] is also regarded as a genius. Is he? No. Robert McNamara was regarded as a genius. Was he? No. The statement about what people are led to think is meaningless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Whether you think that Einstein was a genius or not, it is a fact that he is popularly regarded as a great genius. Perhaps as much as anyone in history. Go ask some random person to name a great genius, and you are apt to get the name Einstein. Saying that Einstein is regarded as a great genius is like saying that Babe Ruth is regarded as a great baseball player.
::: Maybe you'd like to add a later paragraph on the limits to Einstein's genius. Eg, he is often quoted on subjects where he had no expertise. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I agree that many people, who know nothing about what Einstein did, regard him as a great genius. I don't dispute the truth of that claim. I do dispute the significance of it. An encyclopedia or other intelligent resource does not report on what most (ignorant) people think. Most people may think there is life on Mars. Should an entry about Mars begin with, "Most people think there is life on Mars"? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::::: But Andrew you thought that it was relevant enough what fraction of the US population rejected evolution?

:::::: JoshuaZ has a good point. I would also say that biographies of Kissinger and McNamara should say that they were popularly regarded as being extremely smart. Even if you don't think that they were really so smart, you need to know that they were regarded as smart if you want to understand stuff that was written about them. So yes, what people think matters. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: I agree. It goes beyond Kissinger and McNamara, because Einstein has the status of being the popular exemplar of "a genius." There are a number of questions to which everybody knows "the answer" even though the questions are silly and so are the answers. Do this test. Answer the following questions quickly in your head and see if you don't immediately know what the "right" answers are... even if you disagree with them.

::::::: Who's the greatest composer? What is the greatest painting? Who's the greatest playwright? Who's the greatest American inventor?<ref>Beethoven. The Mona Lisa. Shakespeare. Edison. Mozart is gaining on Beethoven, but I think Beethoven is still ahead. But you definitely lose points for "The Night Watch," George Bernard Shaw, or Tesla!</ref>
::::::::OK, The first person I thought of on each question was: Mozart, Mona Lisa, Shakespear, Edison. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 13:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Mona Lisa was a painter?
[[User:ATB|ATB]] 18:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: In the same way, Einstein is "the brand name," the universal popular answer to the question "who was the greatest 'genius'" or "who was the most intelligent person." Arguably others might have been greater, but they didn't get the PR. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I make any wiki-type or style mistakes here, I'm a complete newb at this, and I'll learn more as I go.
I wanted to make a comment regarding the question his genius, I think his fame is incontrovertible.

Not many who understand even a little about the circumstances and the problem-space would argue as to whether or not Isaac Newton was a genius. I think all agree he was.

However any peer-review commentary in the literature that addresses this question of Einsteins abilities that I've ever seen qualifies the Tensor Calculus that he personally invented to solve the space-time theorems of General Relativity as the most fiercely difficult mathematics in existence--before or since.

I would consider that pretty high praise coming from the likes of Hawking, Penrose, et al. Just my $.02.
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 03:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: No, Einstein did not invent the Tensor Calculus. It was Marcel Grossman who gave Einstein the idea of applying tensor calculus to relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==re:Cosmological Constant ne: Dark Energy==
The term was readopted in 1998 after the observations of accelerating expansion. It has since been dropped outside of popular press.
BTW, can someone point out to me how to correctly create references as footnotes. I'm new to wiki editing, and can't seem to pull it off properly. thx.
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 13:50, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Criticism==
I don't like some of the recent additions. Why talk about views that Einstein "seemed" to hold? Did he or didn't he? Einstein wrote a great deal, and there is no reason to speculate about his politics. Either cite something with his political views, or ignore it.
Why does it say "though he held dual U.S. and Swiss citizenships"? Isn't that just what you would expect from someone who believed in World Government?
The next paragraph contradicts itself. It says, "he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project", and then it describes the crucial role that Einstein played. Yes, he did have something to do with it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:10, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::I apologize for my writing gaucheries. I was merely attempting to give the subject the benefit of the doubt. I will re-word to be more affirmative on the facts. In fact, Einstein's minimal encouragement to FDR played very little role in the actual outcome of the Administrations decisions regarding the Manhattan Project, and was certainly not crucial. It had almost no affect at first. The choice to devise and move ahead with the Atom Bomb plans were made as a result of intelligence efforts on the part of the Allies during WWII. I will acknowledge your point about citizenship. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 21:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

This content page is an embarrassment to Conservapedia. It's filled with opinions, unjustified claims, self-contradictions, misleading statements and liberal bias. Any student reading this content page is going to misled and confused. This is the kind of stuff that permeates Wikipedia. Users who like this stuff can enter it on Wikipedia at any time. Actually, I don't think even Wikipedia's entry about Einstein is this substandard. A rewrite is essential here. Somebody please rewrite this in a way that respects our standards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::With all due respect sir, I do not find the flaws in this article that you mentioned. Particularly concerning a liberal bias, there certainly is no trace of that in this writer. Quite the contrary. Accurately reporting the actual facts *without* the liberal spin so typical in today's media is one of my primary goals.

::I am not afraid of the truth. Whether it comes from the Bible, or from Creation. They are both the handiwork of God, and there can be *no* variance between them. In the course of human endeavor, if we uncover fuller knowledge of that handiwork, it's in our best interest to understand it. Jesus Christ is Lord of all Creation, and the more we know about science the plainer that truth will become to the whole world. Proverbs 4:7 says, "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." I hope you will understand my heart in this. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 21:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Not to mention the conservative bias :P --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 18:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Notes==
<references/>

Talk:Albert Einstein

2007-03-09T02:17:19Z

Knowthetruth:

This article is largely incorrect. Gravitons aren't predicted by the General Theory of Relativity. GPS satellites are 1) Useful and 2) Built with control systems that make relativistic corrections to compensate for the curvature of space caused by the earth. Predictions made by relativity which have been verified include: Black Holes, Gravitational Lensing, Spatial Twisting by Rotating Bodies, Extreme Time Distortions Near Black Holes, and Time Dilation by Spatial Curvature.

Gravitational Interferometers are also built to measure the gravity waves that are predicted by the general theory. They also have the inconvenient property of, you know, working.

:Along those lines, I don't know whether particle accelerators are considered "useful" but if built according to Newtonian physics I don't think any of them built since about the 1940s would have worked. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Thank you, JoshuaZ, for correcting the urban legend. Even most Christians concede Einstein's beliefs resembled a form of Deism. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:56, 5 March 2007 (EST)

==Einstein's fame==
Someone reverted my edits without comment. My version was:
: Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for being regarded as a great genius. He is perhaps best known for work on the theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], ...

I say this because Einstein's fame with the general public is not really for his "several great works of theoretical physics". Hardly anyone even knows what those were. But everybody knows Einstein as a great genius.

Also, the phrase "his theories" is inaccurate. Einstein did well-known work on relativity, but it wasn't Einstein's theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I didn't do the reversion, and I only agree with half of the reversion. Special Relativity was not "his [Einstein's] theory", so that should not have been reverted.

:: But I do agree with reverting the claim that Einstein was "regarded as a great genius." The media promotes people as geniuses for a variety of their own reasons, and it often has no basis in fact. [[Henry Kissinger]] is also regarded as a genius. Is he? No. Robert McNamara was regarded as a genius. Was he? No. The statement about what people are led to think is meaningless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Whether you think that Einstein was a genius or not, it is a fact that he is popularly regarded as a great genius. Perhaps as much as anyone in history. Go ask some random person to name a great genius, and you are apt to get the name Einstein. Saying that Einstein is regarded as a great genius is like saying that Babe Ruth is regarded as a great baseball player.
::: Maybe you'd like to add a later paragraph on the limits to Einstein's genius. Eg, he is often quoted on subjects where he had no expertise. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I agree that many people, who know nothing about what Einstein did, regard him as a great genius. I don't dispute the truth of that claim. I do dispute the significance of it. An encyclopedia or other intelligent resource does not report on what most (ignorant) people think. Most people may think there is life on Mars. Should an entry about Mars begin with, "Most people think there is life on Mars"? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:07, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::::: But Andrew you thought that it was relevant enough what fraction of the US population rejected evolution?

:::::: JoshuaZ has a good point. I would also say that biographies of Kissinger and McNamara should say that they were popularly regarded as being extremely smart. Even if you don't think that they were really so smart, you need to know that they were regarded as smart if you want to understand stuff that was written about them. So yes, what people think matters. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: I agree. It goes beyond Kissinger and McNamara, because Einstein has the status of being the popular exemplar of "a genius." There are a number of questions to which everybody knows "the answer" even though the questions are silly and so are the answers. Do this test. Answer the following questions quickly in your head and see if you don't immediately know what the "right" answers are... even if you disagree with them.

::::::: Who's the greatest composer? What is the greatest painting? Who's the greatest playwright? Who's the greatest American inventor?<ref>Beethoven. The Mona Lisa. Shakespeare. Edison. Mozart is gaining on Beethoven, but I think Beethoven is still ahead. But you definitely lose points for "The Night Watch," George Bernard Shaw, or Tesla!</ref>
::::::::OK, The first person I thought of on each question was: Mozart, Mona Lisa, Shakespear, Edison. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 13:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Mona Lisa was a painter?
[[User:ATB|ATB]] 18:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: In the same way, Einstein is "the brand name," the universal popular answer to the question "who was the greatest 'genius'" or "who was the most intelligent person." Arguably others might have been greater, but they didn't get the PR. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I make any wiki-type or style mistakes here, I'm a complete newb at this, and I'll learn more as I go.
I wanted to make a comment regarding the question his genius, I think his fame is incontrovertible.

Not many who understand even a little about the circumstances and the problem-space would argue as to whether or not Isaac Newton was a genius. I think all agree he was.

However any peer-review commentary in the literature that addresses this question of Einsteins abilities that I've ever seen qualifies the Tensor Calculus that he personally invented to solve the space-time theorems of General Relativity as the most fiercely difficult mathematics in existence--before or since.

I would consider that pretty high praise coming from the likes of Hawking, Penrose, et al. Just my $.02.
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 03:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: No, Einstein did not invent the Tensor Calculus. It was Marcel Grossman who gave Einstein the idea of applying tensor calculus to relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==re:Cosmological Constant ne: Dark Energy==
The term was readopted in 1998 after the observations of accelerating expansion. It has since been dropped outside of popular press.
BTW, can someone point out to me how to correctly create references as footnotes. I'm new to wiki editing, and can't seem to pull it off properly. thx.
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 13:50, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Criticism==
I don't like some of the recent additions. Why talk about views that Einstein "seemed" to hold? Did he or didn't he? Einstein wrote a great deal, and there is no reason to speculate about his politics. Either cite something with his political views, or ignore it.
Why does it say "though he held dual U.S. and Swiss citizenships"? Isn't that just what you would expect from someone who believed in World Government?
The next paragraph contradicts itself. It says, "he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project", and then it describes the crucial role that Einstein played. Yes, he did have something to do with it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:10, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::I apologize for my writing gaucheries. I was merely attempting to give the subject the benefit of the doubt. I will re-word to be more affirmative on the facts. In fact, Einstein's minimal encouragement to FDR played very little role in the actual outcome of the Administrations decisions regarding the Manhattan Project, and was certainly not crucial. It had almost no affect at first. The choice to devise and move ahead with the Atom Bomb plans were made as a result of intelligence efforts on the part of the Allies during WWII. I will acknowledge your point about citizenship. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 21:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

This content page is an embarrassment to Conservapedia. It's filled with opinions, unjustified claims, self-contradictions, misleading statements and liberal bias. Any student reading this content page is going to misled and confused. This is the kind of stuff that permeates Wikipedia. Users who like this stuff can enter it on Wikipedia at any time. Actually, I don't think even Wikipedia's entry about Einstein is this substandard. A rewrite is essential here. Somebody please rewrite this in a way that respects our standards.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::With all due respect sir, I do not find the flaws in this article that you mentioned. Particularly concerning a liberal bias, there certainly is no trace of that in this writer. Quite the contrary. Accurately reporting the actual facts *without* the liberal spin so typical in today's media is one of my primary goals.

::I am not afraid of the truth. Whether it comes from the Bible, or from Creation. They are both the handiwork of God, and there can be *no* variance between them. In the course of human endeavor, if we uncover fuller knowledge of that handiwork, it's in our best interest to understand it. Jesus Christ is Lord, and the more we know about science the plainer that truth will become to the whole world. Proverbs 4:7 says, "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." I hope you will understand my heart in this. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 21:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Not to mention the conservative bias :P --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 18:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Notes==
<references/>

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T01:29:38Z

Knowthetruth:

'''No.''' [[Infinite regression]] is a cop-out. It is closely akin to [[circular reasoning]], except that the line of reasoning is not so much a circle as a spiral, into the infinite past or at least through an infinite number of prior steps. For example: How did life originate on earth? It didn't--it couldn't have. So where did it come from? Did [[God]] create it? No--no God-talk in [[science|scientific]] circles. ([[Francis H. Crick]] once wrote a nasty letter to [[Winston Churchill]] suggesting that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel at [[Oxford University]].) Therefore, life was deposited on earth from the outside. How? By a [[ballistic missile]] or a [[comet]]'s tail. Where did that life come from? From another [[planet]]. But how did life arise on that other planet? It didn't--couldn't have--too much information. Did God create life on that other planet? Oh, no. Therefore life was deposited on ''that'' planet as well. Where did ''that'' life come from? From ''another'' ballistic missile. And so on, and so on, for an infinite number of steps.

Am I the only one who recognizes such a line of reasoning as absurd? And not merely absurd, but self-serving of the interests of those seeking to deny God's existence and His role as Creator. It is a very travesty of [[logic]], and that is why I sought to classify it as a [[logical fallacy]].

Why, then, is it ''not'' a logical fallacy? Can an infinite regression ever exist in nature? I'm waiting for the evidence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Postscript: This is a special-case type of page. The "article," as such, ''is'' discussion. That's the nature of a debate topic.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''. There is no ''a priori'' reason to rule out infinite regression in all circumstances. It may seem a superficially unsatisfying explaination to state "it's turtles all the way down", but that doesn't mean that infinite regression cannot exist. Of course, if there is a finite limit to the problem at hand, such as the age of the universe in the panspermia problem, then infinite regression cannot work. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'''Counter'''. That is precisely the problem. The age of the universe ''is'' limited. No reputable [[Astronomy|astronomer]] accepts a steady-state universe anymore. The most that anyone will accept is a cyclic universe--but [[Albert Einstein]] held that a cyclic universe is impossible, because our universe doesn't have enough mass to stop expansion and bring everything back into a clump again. Einstein was slow to realize that, of course, but in the end he yielded to the demands of logic, his own wonderfully self-consistent theory, and observations that he could not controvert.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Firstly, I am not arguing for a "big crush" model. I defer to the opinions of my phycist collegues who assert that a massively old and thus dilute universe could provide the conditions for new "big bangs" or useful material. If it is possible, then there is no ''a priori'' reasons to dismiss infite regression out of hand. Furthermore infinite regression relates to more than temporal regression. You will be familure with cells being explained in terms of chemicals, chemicals in terms of atoms, and so on until we reach quantum theory, or more controversially string theory. There is no ''a priori'' reason to simply assume than this line of explaination stops there, or even ever stops, although I think it probable that it does eventually stop. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I use inappropriate formatting for a discussion page, I'm new to wiki formatting, and I'm very open to guidance on how to use it properly.

I'd like to make a couple of comments here. Fact: All the matter, energy, space and time of ''this'' universe began at it's original Creation. As far as '''''this''''' universe goes, there is absolutely no naturalistic explanation for causation beyond the origin of this universe--simple logic reasoning. Any attempt to do so is by it's very nature inherently a '''super'''-natural (metaphysical) appeal. Therefore (I'm assuming it's acceptable here in discussions to make personal assertions, again correct me if I'm wrong...) let's have no further statements proclaiming 'infinite regressions' beyond the definite '''''finite''''' temporal bounds of this universe. It certainly '''is''' logically ''a priori'' impossible.

On the question of life: The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to the materialist origin of life researcher. There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of living cells (particularly amidst the seriously hostile conditions which were known to exist here on earth at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.

On fallacies: The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature. That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist :^). All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other than possibly as wishful thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^). There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology. The most important one for this issue is that it showed definitively the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator". This is a concept from Thermodynamics. The accuracy of the initial measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced by several other instruments and research teams, and all strongly confirmed the finding--namely this: That the universe as a whole radiates '''''all''''' it's energy (that is, 100%). If you do a little mechanics analysis (remember E=MC^2?) then you realize- There's no energy left over to provide for a so-called 'bounce'.

Additionally, not only is the universe shown to be expanding, but it is now known that it's ''rate'' of expansion is '''increasing'''. If gravitational braking alone was the only action taking place, you would expect a ''decrease'' in it's rate, not an ''increase''. And, even accounting for Dark Matter, the universe is ''far'' short of the critical mass-density required to gravitationally halt it's expansion, even if Dark Energy wasn't in fact the dominant factor, as it is conclusively known to be.

--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Re "do a little mechanics analysis." Go on, then. Let's see it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I'm assuming that is meant as a goad? :^) It's a simple inertia problem. If you'd like to bone up on your Inertia studies, let me in turn invite you to do a little exploration on your own: [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Did it occur to you that in a collapsing Universe, precisely the phenomenon Einstein describes there leads to radiation pressure opposing that collapse?

:There are good reasons to reject the old bouncing models, but this isn't one of them. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Radiation left over from what... the now completely expended mass-energy after total external radiation into the black-body? Think about it for a minute. I believe this is the second strongest argument against a bouncing-universe directly after Dark Energy--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 19:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Radiation ''is'' mass-energy. And it hasn't been 'expended.' How can you expend a quantity that's (locally) conserved? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

You make my point (albeit unwillingly) exactly. Study the notion of the black-body in thermodynamics. The mass-energy '''''is''''' expended (out of this universe) by the radiation you speak of. BTW, there is a fundamental flaw in the model of collapse you mentioned previously. (It's related to the point I just made) If you integrate the radiation-pressure vectors in an enclosed volume they balance to zero. Remember the radiation is in all directions. So in your model, radiation would actually play no factor in the motion of the masses. All that would be left are the effects of Brownian-motions and gravity. In actual fact, however, the universe is ''not'' in an enclosed volume, and the radiation-pressure vectors integrated over time would actually induce interior motion of the volume ''towards'' your supposed collapse, not the reverse. The universe "leaks", and like air escaping from a balloon, the average thrust on any given particle would eventually be interior. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'Out of this universe?' Where exactly do you think it's going? And yes, radiation is in all directions. So what? Same is true of molecular motion in an ideal gas, but that doesn't prevent them from exerting positive pressure. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I think my previous comment explains where I believe the radiation to be going. Since you know of the term Ideal Gas, you may already understand the balance to zero of the radiation pressure. But it distinctly appears you are postulating what can only be described as an enclosed universe, and in an enclosed volume radiated pressure will '''''not''''' exert positive pressure on the system as a whole. It will be zero in Ideal Gas. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:29, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T01:17:19Z

Knowthetruth:

'''No.''' [[Infinite regression]] is a cop-out. It is closely akin to [[circular reasoning]], except that the line of reasoning is not so much a circle as a spiral, into the infinite past or at least through an infinite number of prior steps. For example: How did life originate on earth? It didn't--it couldn't have. So where did it come from? Did [[God]] create it? No--no God-talk in [[science|scientific]] circles. ([[Francis H. Crick]] once wrote a nasty letter to [[Winston Churchill]] suggesting that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel at [[Oxford University]].) Therefore, life was deposited on earth from the outside. How? By a [[ballistic missile]] or a [[comet]]'s tail. Where did that life come from? From another [[planet]]. But how did life arise on that other planet? It didn't--couldn't have--too much information. Did God create life on that other planet? Oh, no. Therefore life was deposited on ''that'' planet as well. Where did ''that'' life come from? From ''another'' ballistic missile. And so on, and so on, for an infinite number of steps.

Am I the only one who recognizes such a line of reasoning as absurd? And not merely absurd, but self-serving of the interests of those seeking to deny God's existence and His role as Creator. It is a very travesty of [[logic]], and that is why I sought to classify it as a [[logical fallacy]].

Why, then, is it ''not'' a logical fallacy? Can an infinite regression ever exist in nature? I'm waiting for the evidence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Postscript: This is a special-case type of page. The "article," as such, ''is'' discussion. That's the nature of a debate topic.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''. There is no ''a priori'' reason to rule out infinite regression in all circumstances. It may seem a superficially unsatisfying explaination to state "it's turtles all the way down", but that doesn't mean that infinite regression cannot exist. Of course, if there is a finite limit to the problem at hand, such as the age of the universe in the panspermia problem, then infinite regression cannot work. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'''Counter'''. That is precisely the problem. The age of the universe ''is'' limited. No reputable [[Astronomy|astronomer]] accepts a steady-state universe anymore. The most that anyone will accept is a cyclic universe--but [[Albert Einstein]] held that a cyclic universe is impossible, because our universe doesn't have enough mass to stop expansion and bring everything back into a clump again. Einstein was slow to realize that, of course, but in the end he yielded to the demands of logic, his own wonderfully self-consistent theory, and observations that he could not controvert.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Firstly, I am not arguing for a "big crush" model. I defer to the opinions of my phycist collegues who assert that a massively old and thus dilute universe could provide the conditions for new "big bangs" or useful material. If it is possible, then there is no ''a priori'' reasons to dismiss infite regression out of hand. Furthermore infinite regression relates to more than temporal regression. You will be familure with cells being explained in terms of chemicals, chemicals in terms of atoms, and so on until we reach quantum theory, or more controversially string theory. There is no ''a priori'' reason to simply assume than this line of explaination stops there, or even ever stops, although I think it probable that it does eventually stop. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I use inappropriate formatting for a discussion page, I'm new to wiki formatting, and I'm very open to guidance on how to use it properly.

I'd like to make a couple of comments here. Fact: All the matter, energy, space and time of ''this'' universe began at it's original Creation. As far as '''''this''''' universe goes, there is absolutely no naturalistic explanation for causation beyond the origin of this universe--simple logic reasoning. Any attempt to do so is by it's very nature inherently a '''super'''-natural (metaphysical) appeal. Therefore (I'm assuming it's acceptable here in discussions to make personal assertions, again correct me if I'm wrong...) let's have no further statements proclaiming 'infinite regressions' beyond the definite '''''finite''''' temporal bounds of this universe. It certainly '''is''' logically ''a priori'' impossible.

On the question of life: The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to the materialist origin of life researcher. There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of living cells (particularly amidst the seriously hostile conditions which were known to exist here on earth at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.

On fallacies: The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature. That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist :^). All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other than possibly as wishful thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^). There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology. The most important one for this issue is that it showed definitively the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator". This is a concept from Thermodynamics. The accuracy of the initial measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced by several other instruments and research teams, and all strongly confirmed the finding--namely this: That the universe as a whole radiates '''''all''''' it's energy (that is, 100%). If you do a little mechanics analysis (remember E=MC^2?) then you realize- There's no energy left over to provide for a so-called 'bounce'.

Additionally, not only is the universe shown to be expanding, but it is now known that it's ''rate'' of expansion is '''increasing'''. If gravitational braking alone was the only action taking place, you would expect a ''decrease'' in it's rate, not an ''increase''. And, even accounting for Dark Matter, the universe is ''far'' short of the critical mass-density required to gravitationally halt it's expansion, even if Dark Energy wasn't in fact the dominant factor, as it is conclusively known to be.

--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Re "do a little mechanics analysis." Go on, then. Let's see it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I'm assuming that is meant as a goad? :^) It's a simple inertia problem. If you'd like to bone up on your Inertia studies, let me in turn invite you to do a little exploration on your own: [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Did it occur to you that in a collapsing Universe, precisely the phenomenon Einstein describes there leads to radiation pressure opposing that collapse?

:There are good reasons to reject the old bouncing models, but this isn't one of them. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Radiation left over from what... the now completely expended mass-energy after total external radiation into the black-body? Think about it for a minute. I believe this is the second strongest argument against a bouncing-universe directly after Dark Energy--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 19:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Radiation ''is'' mass-energy. And it hasn't been 'expended.' How can you expend a quantity that's (locally) conserved? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

You make my point (albeit unwillingly) exactly. Study the notion of the black-body in thermodynamics. The mass-energy '''''is''''' expended (out of this universe) by the radiation you speak of. BTW, there is a fundamental flaw in the model of collapse you mentioned previously. (It's related to the point I just made) If you integrate the radiation-pressure vectors in an enclosed volume they balance to zero. Remember the radiation is in all directions. So in your model, radiation would actually play no factor in the motion of the masses. All that would be left would be the effects of Brownian-motions and gravity. In actual fact, however, the universe is ''not'' in an enclosed volume, and the radiation-pressure vectors integrated over time would actually induce interior motion of the volume ''towards'' your supposed collapse, not the reverse. The universe "leaks", and like air escaping from a balloon, the average thrust on any given particle would eventually be interior. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T01:07:53Z

Knowthetruth:

'''No.''' [[Infinite regression]] is a cop-out. It is closely akin to [[circular reasoning]], except that the line of reasoning is not so much a circle as a spiral, into the infinite past or at least through an infinite number of prior steps. For example: How did life originate on earth? It didn't--it couldn't have. So where did it come from? Did [[God]] create it? No--no God-talk in [[science|scientific]] circles. ([[Francis H. Crick]] once wrote a nasty letter to [[Winston Churchill]] suggesting that a brothel would be just as appropriate as a chapel at [[Oxford University]].) Therefore, life was deposited on earth from the outside. How? By a [[ballistic missile]] or a [[comet]]'s tail. Where did that life come from? From another [[planet]]. But how did life arise on that other planet? It didn't--couldn't have--too much information. Did God create life on that other planet? Oh, no. Therefore life was deposited on ''that'' planet as well. Where did ''that'' life come from? From ''another'' ballistic missile. And so on, and so on, for an infinite number of steps.

Am I the only one who recognizes such a line of reasoning as absurd? And not merely absurd, but self-serving of the interests of those seeking to deny God's existence and His role as Creator. It is a very travesty of [[logic]], and that is why I sought to classify it as a [[logical fallacy]].

Why, then, is it ''not'' a logical fallacy? Can an infinite regression ever exist in nature? I'm waiting for the evidence.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Postscript: This is a special-case type of page. The "article," as such, ''is'' discussion. That's the nature of a debate topic.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 23:41, 7 March 2007 (EST)

'''Comment'''. There is no ''a priori'' reason to rule out infinite regression in all circumstances. It may seem a superficially unsatisfying explaination to state "it's turtles all the way down", but that doesn't mean that infinite regression cannot exist. Of course, if there is a finite limit to the problem at hand, such as the age of the universe in the panspermia problem, then infinite regression cannot work. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:'''Counter'''. That is precisely the problem. The age of the universe ''is'' limited. No reputable [[Astronomy|astronomer]] accepts a steady-state universe anymore. The most that anyone will accept is a cyclic universe--but [[Albert Einstein]] held that a cyclic universe is impossible, because our universe doesn't have enough mass to stop expansion and bring everything back into a clump again. Einstein was slow to realize that, of course, but in the end he yielded to the demands of logic, his own wonderfully self-consistent theory, and observations that he could not controvert.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Firstly, I am not arguing for a "big crush" model. I defer to the opinions of my phycist collegues who assert that a massively old and thus dilute universe could provide the conditions for new "big bangs" or useful material. If it is possible, then there is no ''a priori'' reasons to dismiss infite regression out of hand. Furthermore infinite regression relates to more than temporal regression. You will be familure with cells being explained in terms of chemicals, chemicals in terms of atoms, and so on until we reach quantum theory, or more controversially string theory. There is no ''a priori'' reason to simply assume than this line of explaination stops there, or even ever stops, although I think it probable that it does eventually stop. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Please forgive me if I use inappropriate formatting for a discussion page, I'm new to wiki formatting, and I'm very open to guidance on how to use it properly.

I'd like to make a couple of comments here. Fact: All the matter, energy, space and time of ''this'' universe began at it's original Creation. As far as '''''this''''' universe goes, there is absolutely no naturalistic explanation for causation beyond the origin of this universe--simple logic reasoning. Any attempt to do so is by it's very nature inherently a '''super'''-natural (metaphysical) appeal. Therefore (I'm assuming it's acceptable here in discussions to make personal assertions, again correct me if I'm wrong...) let's have no further statements proclaiming 'infinite regressions' beyond the definite '''''finite''''' temporal bounds of this universe. It certainly '''is''' logically ''a priori'' impossible.

On the question of life: The origin of life (not any subsequent changes thereto, just the simple origin problem alone) poses an insurmountable problem to the materialist origin of life researcher. There is not the slightest possibility of any stochastic mechanism alone providing satisfactory explanation for the incredible sequence of events required to form even the simplest of living cells (particularly amidst the seriously hostile conditions which were known to exist here on earth at physical life's beginning) during the known-to-be finite timespan (and everyother-span) of this universe.

On fallacies: The preeminent fallacy committed by typical science researchers today is the idea of methodological-naturalism, I.E., You can make no appeal to any causation beyond the boundaries of observable nature. That is implicitly a biased point-of-view, and is a fundamentally flawed agenda if the actual goal is the pursuit of truth no matter where it leads--ostensibly the sovereign goal of science research itself (I know, I know...I'm probably just a naive idealist :^). All other current reasoning errors in science and philosophy research stem from this basic issue.

Finally, on the 'Bouncing-Universe': This ancient Hindu notion has pervaded much of modern philosophy, but it no longer has any real weight in science research, other than possibly as wishful thinking and longing for 'the good old days'... :^). There was a research satellite named COBE (published in 1992), which provided 2 major findings in cosmology. The most important one for this issue is that it showed definitively the universe as a whole is a "perfect black-body radiator". This is a concept from Thermodynamics. The accuracy of the initial measurements leading to this finding have since been greatly enhanced by several other instruments and research teams, and all strongly confirmed the finding--namely this: That the universe as a whole radiates '''''all''''' it's energy (that is, 100%). If you do a little mechanics analysis (remember E=MC^2?) then you realize- There's no energy left over to provide for a so-called 'bounce'.

Additionally, not only is the universe shown to be expanding, but it is now known that it's ''rate'' of expansion is '''increasing'''. If gravitational braking alone was the only action taking place, you would expect a ''decrease'' in it's rate, not an ''increase''. And, even accounting for Dark Matter, the universe is ''far'' short of the critical mass-density required to gravitationally halt it's expansion, even if Dark Energy wasn't in fact the dominant factor, as it is conclusively known to be.

--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Re "do a little mechanics analysis." Go on, then. Let's see it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I'm assuming that is meant as a goad? :^) It's a simple inertia problem. If you'd like to bone up on your Inertia studies, let me in turn invite you to do a little exploration on your own: [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]
--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 18:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Did it occur to you that in a collapsing Universe, precisely the phenomenon Einstein describes there leads to radiation pressure opposing that collapse?

:There are good reasons to reject the old bouncing models, but this isn't one of them. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Radiation left over from what... the now completely expended mass-energy after total external radiation into the black-body? Think about it for a minute. I believe this is the second strongest argument against a bouncing-universe directly after Dark Energy--[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 19:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Radiation ''is'' mass-energy. And it hasn't been 'expended.' How can you expend a quantity that's (locally) conserved? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

You make my point (albeit unwillingly) exactly. Study the notion of the black-body in thermodynamics. The mass-energy '''''is''''' expended (out of this universe) by the radiation you speak of. BTW, there is a fundamental flaw in the model of collapse you mentioned previously. (It's related to the point I just made) If you integrate the radiation-pressure vectors in an enclosed volume they balance to zero. Remember the radiation is in all directions. So in your model, radiation would actually play no factor in the motion of the masses. All that would be left would be the effects of Brownian-motions and gravity. In actual fact, however, the universe is not in an enclosed volume, and the radiation-pressure vectors integrated over time would actually induce interior motion of the volume ''towards'' your supposed collapse, not the reverse. The universe "leaks", and like air escaping from a balloon, the average thrust on any given particle would eventually be interior. --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 20:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T00:41:28Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T00:38:30Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T00:36:49Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T00:17:27Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-09T00:15:03Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:57:30Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:54:42Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:53:12Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:52:37Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:46:28Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:42:57Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:41:56Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:37:02Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:35:26Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:33:21Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:31:40Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:30:18Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:26:55Z

Knowthetruth:

Debate:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?

2007-03-08T23:00:14Z

Knowthetruth:

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T21:53:48Z

Knowthetruth: /* Beliefs */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from [[Princeton]] [[University]] first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub the [[phenomenon]] the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have confirmed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but they have also revealed that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein directly helped the U.S. [[Government]] devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in 1939 via a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the possibility of developing a [[Nuclear-fission]] bomb was on the near horizon, that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was apparently working to develop one, and that the United States should promptly make arrangements to further it's recent [[discoveries]] and [[research]] in this area--as well as to procure reliable sources of [[Uranium]], of which the U.S. was relatively short.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T21:42:44Z

Knowthetruth: /* Beliefs */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from [[Princeton]] [[University]] first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have confirmed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but they have also revealed that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein directly helped the U.S. [[Government]] devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in 1939 via a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the possibility of developing a [[Nuclear-fission]] bomb was on the near horizon, that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was apparently working to develop one, and that the United States should promptly make arrangements to further it's recent [[discoveries]] and [[research]] in this area--as well as to procure reliable sources of [[Uranium]], of which the U.S. was relatively short.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T21:30:37Z

Knowthetruth: /* Criticisms */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have confirmed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but they have also revealed that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein directly helped the U.S. [[Government]] devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in 1939 via a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the possibility of developing a [[Nuclear-fission]] bomb was on the near horizon, that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was apparently working to develop one, and that the United States should promptly make arrangements to further it's recent [[discoveries]] and [[research]] in this area--as well as to procure reliable sources of [[Uranium]], of which the U.S. was relatively short.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T21:29:22Z

Knowthetruth: /* Criticisms */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have confirmed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but they have also revealed that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein directly helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in 1939 via a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the possibility of developing a [[Nuclear-fission]] bomb was on the near horizon, that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was apparently working to develop one, and that the United States should promptly make arrangements to further it's recent [[discoveries]] and [[research]] in this area--as well as to procure reliable sources of [[Uranium]], of which the U.S. was relatively short.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T21:27:35Z

Knowthetruth: /* Criticisms */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have confirmed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but they have also revealed that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein directly helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in 1939 via a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the possibility of developing a nuclear-fission bomb was on the near horizon, that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was apparently working to develop one, and that the United States should promptly make arrangements to further it's recent [[discoveries]] and [[research]] in this area--as well as to procure reliable sources of [[Uranium]], of which the U.S. was relatively short.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T21:25:44Z

Knowthetruth: /* Criticisms */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have confirmed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but they have also revealed that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein directly helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the possibility of developing a nuclear-fission bomb was on the near horizon (1939), that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was apparently working to develop one, and that the United States should promptly make arrangements to further it's recent [[discoveries]] and [[research]] in this area--as well as to procure reliable sources of [[Uranium]], of which the U.S. was relatively short.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T21:24:32Z

Knowthetruth: /* Criticisms */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have confirmed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but they have also revealed that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein directly helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the possibility of developing a nuclear-fission bomb was on the near horizon (1939), that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was apparently working to develop one, and that the United States should make arrangements to further it's recent [[discoveries]] and [[research]] in this area--as well as to procure reliable sources of [[Uranium]], of which the U.S. was relatively short.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T21:22:12Z

Knowthetruth: /* Criticisms */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have confirmed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but they have also revealed that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein directly helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the possibility of developing a nuclear-fission bomb was on the near horizon (1939), that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was apparently working to develop one, and that the United States should make arrangements to further it's recent discoveries and research in this area--as well as to procure reliable sources of Uranium, of which the U.S. was relatively short.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T20:45:44Z

Knowthetruth: /* Beliefs */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have confirmed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but they have also revealed that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was working hard to develop one.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T20:45:13Z

Knowthetruth: /* Beliefs */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have confirmed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but have also revealed that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was working hard to develop one.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T20:40:05Z

Knowthetruth: /* Beliefs */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have revealed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was working hard to develop one.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T20:33:05Z

Knowthetruth: /* Beliefs */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' factor (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have revealed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was working hard to develop one.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T20:22:00Z

Knowthetruth: /* Beliefs */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, <nowiki>"It was the biggest blunder of my life."</nowiki>

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of "anti-gravity" factor (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have revealed that not only were the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was working hard to develop one.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T20:13:57Z

Knowthetruth: /* Beliefs */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, <nowiki>"It was the biggest blunder of my life."</nowiki>

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of "anti-gravity" factor (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have revealed that not only are the initial [[WMAP]] findings correct, but that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was working hard to develop one.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T20:05:53Z

Knowthetruth: /* Beliefs */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, <nowiki>"It was the biggest blunder of my life."</nowiki>

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of "anti-gravity" factor (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have revealed that not only are the [[WMAP]] findings correct, but that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was working hard to develop one.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T20:04:52Z

Knowthetruth: /* Beliefs */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, <nowiki>"It was the biggest blunder of my life."</nowiki>

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of "anti-gravity" factor (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and further analysis have revealed that not only are the findings correct, but that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was working hard to develop one.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T20:04:23Z

Knowthetruth: /* Beliefs */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, <nowiki>"It was the biggest blunder of my life."</nowiki>

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of "anti-gravity" factor (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and deeper analysis have revealed that not only are the findings correct, but that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was working hard to develop one.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]

Albert Einstein

2007-03-08T20:03:12Z

Knowthetruth: /* Criticisms */

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was a German born Nobel Prize winning physicist famous for several great works of theoretical physics. He is perhaps best known for his theories of [[Special Relativity]] and [[General Relativity]], but his accomplishments include contributions to many other important works, such as the [[Photoelectric Effect]], [[Brownian Motion]], [[Bose-Einstein Statistics]], his critiques of quantum mechanics via the [[EPR-Paradox]], and later in life, his work in search of a [[Unified Field Theory]].

==Biography==

====His notoriety====

While there have been many other great scientists, Albert Einstein is surely the most widely recognized scientist in the modern world--no captions are needed on his photographs, and practically every adult in the world immediately recognizes him.

He received the [[Nobel Prize]] in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref>.

Einstein's meteoric rise to world fame came after the publication of Sir [[Arthur Eddington]]'s observations on the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]], which were taken during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919, and which were proclaimed to be the first [[observation]]al [[proof]]s of Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]].

Effectively overnight, Einstein became famous the world over, and over time his name has now become synonymous in [[Western Culture]] with [[genius]].

==Famous works==
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.

==Beliefs==

Einstein's revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a '[[fudge-factor]]' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], of whom [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named in honor, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct [[observation]]s alongside him, and Hubble's [[finding]]s showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed [[expand]]ing, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, <nowiki>"It was the biggest blunder of my life."</nowiki>

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from Princeton first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an [[accelerating]] expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of "anti-gravity" factor (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub it the 'Cosmological Constant' as well.

Subsequent observations and deeper analysis have revealed that not only is the accelerating expansion a real [[phenomenon]], but that the effect arises rather from a much deeper and more fundamental characteristic of the fabric of space-time itself. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

==Criticisms==
Probably the biggest criticisms of Einstein for [[Creationist]]s are that he seemed to hold to the political and philosophical notions of [[Marxism]], and that he also apparently supported the formation of a [[World Government]]<ref>[http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html]</ref>, though he held dual [[U.S.]] and [[Swiss]] citizenships.

And, although many seem to believe (see: [[Urban Legend]]) that Einstein helped the U.S. devise the first [[Atomic Bomb]] (probably because of [[E=MC^2]]), he in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the project. He did, however, warn [[President]] [[Roosevelt]] in a letter<ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> that the [[Nazi]] [[German]] government was working hard to develop one.

Einstein's work on special relativity did not cite its sources, and misled many people into thinking that he invented the theory.

Einstein spent much of his later career fruitlessly looking for variants of Hermann Weyl's unified field theory of electromagnetism and gravity.

Eddington's 1919 observation was actually inconclusive, and the public acclaim for Einstein was undeserved. (Better observations were done later.)

==References==

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]

"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]

"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf]